On Evolution & Creation

[John53]

Based on their posts it appears they think evolution is what you see in Pokemon cartoons.

Or maybe Transformers.

 

[Audie]

Or maybe Transformers.

The time creos spend battling their own imaginations!

 

[Astrophile]

Somehow I think gorillas are gorillas. Have observers found gorillas to be evolving to something other than/more than gorillas?

Whatever gorillas and chimpanzees evolve into, they will still be apes and primates and mammals. In particular, gorillas and chimpanzees will never evolve into humans. That is not how evolution works.

 

[Astrophile]

So far has there been any recognition that chimpanzees and gorillas are evolving? I'm thinking you may be confusing speciation with the conjecture that dinosaurs "evolved to" birds. Or that fish eventually evolved to become ... humans. But that Unknown Common Ape ancestor first, I suppose you think and believe.

I have shown you the family tree of apes leading to humans about a dozen times already. Here it is again. At present the most likely last common ancestors of human, chimpanzees and gorillas are Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus. Far from this last common ancestor being unknown, there are many fossil primates that might be the common ancestor; the difficulty is to distinguish between real ancestors and side branches of the family tree (evolutionary 'cousins').

As I have said, I have shown you this family tree about a dozen times already. Will you please acknowledge it and either accept that what I have said is basically correct, show me where I am wrong, or say that you will never accept this family tree as valid and that I am wasting my time showing it to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whatever gorillas and chimpanzees evolve into, they will still be apes and primates and mammals. In particular, gorillas and chimpanzees will never evolve into humans. That is not how evolution works.

You don't know from what these apes evolved. Do you KNOW what the "Unknown so-called Common Ancestor" of apes was? If you do, our conversation is basically over anyway, even though it's about over now. I do not imagine gorillas will turn into humans, despite movies that make them seem like some sort of human.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have shown you the family tree of apes leading to humans about a dozen times already. Here it is again. At present the most likely last common ancestors of human, chimpanzees and gorillas are Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus. Far from this last common ancestor being unknown, there are many fossil primates that might be the common ancestor; the difficulty is to distinguish between real ancestors and side branches of the family tree (evolutionary 'cousins').

As I have said, I have shown you this family tree about a dozen times already. Will you please acknowledge it and either accept that what I have said is basically correct, show me where I am wrong, or say that you will never accept this family tree as valid and that I am wasting my time showing it to you.

That "tree" doesn't make much sense to me. It's an imaginary version of some scientists. The tree may make sense to you --

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know from what these apes evolved. Do you KNOW what the "Unknown so-called Common Ancestor" of apes was? If you do, our conversation is basically over anyway, even though it's about over now. I do not imagine gorillas will turn into humans, despite movies that make them seem like some sort of human.

That is false. We have a very good idea of what those various apes evolved from. We just do not have a fossilized species. Why do you think that one is necessary when the evidence for evolution is endless. Meanwhile there is no evidence for your beliefs at all. In fact you cannot even clearly state them. Just in case you forgot even Darwin knew that the fossil record was very incomplete and would always have some gaps in it. Gaps in the fossil record is NOT a problem for the theory of evolution. What the theory of evolution has to be able to do is to show that every fossil discovered fits within the theory. That means that every new fossil is a test of the theory. We could always discover a fossil that does not fit with the theory if something like creationism was true. But we never ever have found such a fossil. Instead each new find only makes the theory of evolution even stronger.

Denying the theory of evolution these days i really not different from claiming that the Earth is flat.

 

[viole]

Creation and Evolution are the same thing are they not?

Nope.

Assuming evolution is true, you can see evolution as a mean used by a creator to create life's complexity, while evolution does not need that, since it stands on its own feet. So to speak. A creator might need evolution, while evolution does not necessarily need a creator.

IOW: Evolution, assuming it true, is necessary but not sufficient for creation. Therefore the two things are not logically equivalent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on their posts it appears they think evolution is what you see in Pokemon cartoons.

I used to say X-Men comics, but the descriptions all seem to fit.

 

[McBell]

I used to say X-Men comics, but the descriptions all seem to fit.

I prefer using Pokemon because it strikes better at the core of the childishness...

 

[Valjean]

I'm not really singling them out--just an expression. I could say fruit flies. And fish. There is nothing today to show that fish are moving to another type of organism.

What would expect to see? You know we're talking about changes over millions of years.

But then maybe one might say there just aren't enough scientific investigators to keep track of all the fish. So of all the species today, lions, tigers, horses, beetles, etc. which of those are seen within the past 100 years or so to evolve beyond their present state as lions, tigers, horses & so forth...or finches. Or gorillas...Maybe they are all just happy being what they are and multiply as they are without "survival of the fittest" due to mutational changes. And the idea that Nepalese with changing lung capacity does not mean they are "evolving" to a new species of humans. Neither does various inherited skin color of humans mean a different species.

See, you've forgotten what we've been telling you. You won't see evolutionary change directly.
Do you understand what survival of the fittest mean? What does "without survival of the fittest" mean to you?
What's the difference between adaptive changes like better oxygen utilization and evolution? Evolution is change, and the change is an accumulation of small changes you'd never see in your lifetime. What kind of changes did you think evolutionary changes were?
Skin coloring? Why would this change not be evolutionary? Are there categories of change?

After years discussing evolution on RF, and years of explanations and corrections, you still seem to have no grasp of evolution or its mechanisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

What would expect to see? You know we're talking about changes over millions of years.

See, you've forgotten what we've been telling you. You won't see evolutionary change directly.
Do you understand what survival of the fittest mean? What does "without survival of the fittest" mean to you?
What's the difference between adaptive changes like better oxygen utilization and evolution? Evolution is change, and the change is an accumulation of small changes you'd never see in your lifetime. What kind of changes did you think evolutionary changes were?
Skin coloring? Why would this change not be evolutionary? Are there categories of change?

After years discussing evolution on RF, and years of explanations and corrections, you still seem to have no grasp of evolution or its mechanisms.

Some people do say they "see" evolution directly when they see birds' beaks change size, don't they? First let's see if we can agree on that point. Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

 

[Pogo]

Some people do say they "see" evolution directly when they see birds' beaks change size, don't they? First let's see if we can agree on that point. Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

Yes not everybody is as myopic as you and can see evolution in small steps such as changes in bird beaks and also in long term changes such as were being discussed by @Valjean That you wish to somehow differentiate them as separate things is your unwillingness to see a larger picture.

There is another similar example of two fish species one from the Rhine and one from a canal that feeds the Rhine, they mated and formed a new species that doesn't mate with either parent and only lives near the confluence, Can't find the link just now, but while rare, it does happen and it is all evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes not everybody is as myopic as you and can see evolution in small steps such as changes in bird beaks and also in long term changes such as were being discussed by @Valjean That you wish to somehow differentiate them as separate things is your unwillingness to see a larger picture.

There is another similar example of two fish species one from the Rhine and one from a canal that feeds the Rhine, they mated and formed a new species that doesn't mate with either parent and only lives near the confluence, Can't find the link just now, but while rare, it does happen and it is all evolution.

I didn't make it up about species changing or evolving within the finch population.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't make it up about species changing or evolving within the finch population.

No, you didn't, it is an unusual example of rapid speciation as was the example I gave, but it is all evolution from the vertebrates swimming around through Tiktaalik and on through us and the finches.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans remain apes, and primates, and mammals, and vertebrates.

We have been trying to explain this to @YoursTrue on a near weekly basis since at least june 2021

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

I think it's clear we are dealing with the epitome of intellectual dishonesty / willful ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So far has there been any recognition that chimpanzees and gorillas are evolving? I'm thinking you may be confusing speciation with the conjecture that dinosaurs "evolved to" birds.

Birds ARE dinosaurs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, humans no matter long or short limbs by passing on genetics, or skin color, among other differences, still -- remain -- humans...

Did you expect humans to become anything other then humans?

Have you learned nothing at all these past 3 years?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have observers found gorillas to be evolving to something other than/more than gorillas?

If they would have, evolution would be disproven

I mean like it's been conjectured that Tiktaalik mutated from fish without appendages I suppose that also then supposedly turned into legs after a while and while mutating lungs that could breathe entirely out of water. That's all hypothesis.Or conjecture. Or theory.
Oh, and P.S. - there are those who really believe that fish became eventually humans and, I suppose, gorillas, etc. And other organisms on the way. I'm not sure if you believe that gorillas are fish also, because I've heard some here and otherwise say that humans are fish. Look, if you believe that -- ok. I no longer do. (I wasn't there when it supposedly happened.)

Humans gorilla's, etc... are chordates. Just like fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't know from what these apes evolved.

From primate mammal ancestors.

Do you KNOW what the "Unknown so-called Common Ancestor" of apes was?

Not any more then you "know" what the "unknown common ancestor" of you and your 27th cousin was. Or do you KNOW who your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-...great grandparents were?

The lesson here is that determining that a common ancestor existed does not at all require being able to actually identify it.

I do not imagine gorillas will turn into humans, despite movies that make them seem like some sort of human.

Maybe don't look at movies when it comes to learning about evolutionary biology.